POLICE REPORT

Case NO: 249 U.S. 47, 1919 Date: March 3, 1919

Reporting Officer: Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Prepared By: Edward Douglass White

Detail of Event:
Charles Schenck, secretary of the Socialist Party of America in Philadelphia during the First World War,
was accused for distributing 15,000 leaflets to prospective military draftees during World War I. The
leaflets urged the potential draftees to refuse to serve, if drafted, saying "Do not submit to intimidation",
"Assert your rights", "If you do not assert and support your rights, you are helping to deny or disparage
rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to retain." He believed
that military conscription constituted involuntary servitude, which is prohibited by the Thirteenth
Amendment. The Federal government held the position that Schenck's actions violated the Espionage
Act of 1917.
Actions Taken:
After working its way through the federal courts, the case was judged by the Supreme Court in 1919.
The government accused Schenck of violating the Espionage Act. It said that Schenck's pamphlets were
intended to weaken the loyalty of soldiers and to obstruct military recruiting. Schenck answered by
saying that the Espionage Act was unconstitutional. He said that it broke the First Amendment's promise
that "Congress shall make no lawabridging the freedom of speech." Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
thought that during war the government certainly has the power to prevent obstructions to recruitment.
Therefore, it also has the power to punish someone who uses words that are proven to cause such
obstructions. "The question in every case," said Holmes, "is whether the words are used in such
circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about
the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Justice Holmes admitted that in many places
and in ordinary times Schenck would have had a right to say everything that he said in his pamphlets.
However, he said that how far a person's freedom of speech extends depends on the circumstances.
Summary
After jury trials Schenck was convicted of violating Section 3 of the Espionage Act of 1917. Defendants
appealed to the United States Supreme Court, arguing that their conviction was contrary to the First
Amendment. They relied heavily of the text of the First Amendment, and their claim that the Espionage
Act of 1917 had what today we would call a "chilling effect" on free discussion of the war effort. The
United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government. The court distinguished between
dangerous expressions and dangerous acts, stating that the sentiments expressed in Schencks writings
were considered to be an immediate threat to the countrys safety and the wellbeing of its people.
Charles Schenck served one half year in prison.